Which Kurt Warner will we see?

[packers11]

Everytime I watch the Cardinals (which seems to be a lot since I have NFL Ticket and they are on at 4:15) Warner kind of resembles someone else I used to watch a lot. Cough*Favre*

Warner either goes out there and plays flawless or lays a huge egg...

I wanted to see if my observations were indeed correct...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=1682

Everytime the Cardinals have lost his QB rating is horrendous (below 80), I think a big factor of this game is like when watching Favre. Which Warner will show up?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I think it has a direct correlation with his offensive line play. I wonder what the Cardinals sack/knock-down totals are in their losses this season(I know I could look this up but I'm feeling lazy right now).

[mission]

I dunno but Fitz and Boldin (combined) have 1 catch this season over 40 yards compared to 11 by Jennings and Driver.

Doesn't seem like the flea-flicker crazy Cards from last year. Those guys are A+ receivers but stats don't lie... Fitz is producing a lot more like Housh and Marshall than he is Desean Jackson or another big play guy.

Hopefully this holds true come Sunday!

[Freak Out]

I hope we see the Warner that fumbles any time an opposing player even lays a finger in him.

Clay could cause a load of fumbles this weekend.....

[Noodle]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

[sharpe1027]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Hyde that was the bad-ass that kicked ass and Dr. Jekyll was the wimp that rolled over and threw-up prayers. :lol:

Seriously though, I agree that Rodgers play is remarkably even/consistent. His bad game are, quite frankly, not that bad and often directly related to bad play by the O-line and/or drops. His great games are still pretty damn good.

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.

[mission]

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.

I ain't mad atcha!

I've compared Rodgers' style to Montana's more than once on this board. Hopefully he can win us four games in a row and I can start looking kinda smart as far as this AR thing goes. :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.


+1.

[Scott Campbell]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Hyde that was the bad-ass that kicked ass and Dr. Jekyll was the wimp that rolled over and threw-up prayers. :lol:

Seriously though, I agree that Rodgers play is remarkably even/consistent. His bad game are, quite frankly, not that bad and often directly related to bad play by the O-line and/or drops. His great games are still pretty damn good.

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.


Going one step further, he commands the huddle a bit like Montana. He's pretty unflappable.

[mission]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Hyde that was the bad-ass that kicked ass and Dr. Jekyll was the wimp that rolled over and threw-up prayers. :lol:

Seriously though, I agree that Rodgers play is remarkably even/consistent. His bad game are, quite frankly, not that bad and often directly related to bad play by the O-line and/or drops. His great games are still pretty damn good.

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.


Going one step further, he commands the huddle a bit like Montana. He's pretty unflappable.

That old story of Montana in the Super Bowl before the game winning drive... looks up, points to the stands and calmly asked his guys if that was John Candy (over there). Made everyone crack up and relax.

Cool customer. I loved Joe (as a non-Niner fan) and I love Aaron. <3

[pack4to84]

Arz
sacked 26 times and hit 93 times

[Fosco33]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Hyde that was the bad-ass that kicked ass and Dr. Jekyll was the wimp that rolled over and threw-up prayers. :lol:

Seriously though, I agree that Rodgers play is remarkably even/consistent. His bad game are, quite frankly, not that bad and often directly related to bad play by the O-line and/or drops. His great games are still pretty damn good.

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.


Going one step further, he commands the huddle a bit like Montana. He's pretty unflappable.


Montana is surely at the top for wins, SBs, etc. But just for a second - look at his stats...

He never passed for more than 4,000 yards in a season.
He only once had more than 30TDs in a season.
He never threw 7 or less TDs (adjusted per game) - ever.
And not until his 6th season (5th season starting) did he have a 100+ QB rating.

:shock:

Look again at Rodger's 2009... quite the season.

[Smidgeon]

Interesting comparison to Favre. I remember back in the hey day, the late 90s, really worrying about which Favre would show up. If Mr. Hyde, there was no way we could win, if Dr. Jekyll, no way we could lose.

I don't have that kind of feeling with Rodgers, either way. I never worry that he's going to just stink up the joint, but I never have the feeling that if he's on, there's no way the Pack can lose. That doesn't make him inferior to Favre, just very different.

Personally, I think it was Mr. Hyde that was the bad-ass that kicked ass and Dr. Jekyll was the wimp that rolled over and threw-up prayers. :lol:

Seriously though, I agree that Rodgers play is remarkably even/consistent. His bad game are, quite frankly, not that bad and often directly related to bad play by the O-line and/or drops. His great games are still pretty damn good.

He is a great guy to have with a good team around him. More of a Montana than a Favre. Before you go screaming, there is no way Rodgers is anywhere near Montana's level. I just mean that Montana was a guy that gave consistent performances from game to game.


Going one step further, he commands the huddle a bit like Montana. He's pretty unflappable.


Montana is surely at the top for wins, SBs, etc. But just for a second - look at his stats...

He never passed for more than 4,000 yards in a season.
He only once had more than 30TDs in a season.
He never threw 7 or less TDs (adjusted per game) - ever.
And not until his 6th season (5th season starting) did he have a 100+ QB rating.

:shock:

Look again at Rodger's 2009... quite the season.

Don't forget that the 2005 rules emphasis opened up the stat sheet for QBs. It's dramatic the peaks QBs reached after that versus before.

[Fritz]

Okay, I'm confused. Does that mean Joe Montana is more like Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll?

[Fosco33]

Okay, I'm confused. Does that mean Joe Montana is more like Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll?

Dr. Hyde :P

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Is the Bear a Catholic?

:P

[sharpe1027]

Okay, I'm confused. Does that mean Joe Montana is more like Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll?

Yea, get it straight Fritz! Joe is more like Dr. Hyde. I like it.

[The Leaper]

Gotta pressure Warner up the middle. He is a HORRIBLE QB when you get pressure in his face and he can't step up in the pocket.

[Lurker64]

Gotta pressure Warner up the middle. He is a HORRIBLE QB when you get pressure in his face and he can't step up in the pocket.

He also has one of the quickest releases I've seen, so if you're going to blitz him, you need to actually get there with pressure.

[Guiness]

Gotta pressure Warner up the middle. He is a HORRIBLE QB when you get pressure in his face and he can't step up in the pocket.

Sure is - remember his time with the Giants, OL couldn't keep the wolves at bay, and he was bad.

He was the same near the end in St-L; their OL fell off, and his game dropped significantly. So, can we keep the pressure on him this Sunday? I think we can.

[MOBB DEEP]

...the one that continues to impress as a geezer like some1 else we all despise

[esoxx]

Warner used to be accused of being an ailen for being so "out of this world" during the Greatest Show on Turf era.

Looked like E.T. showed up today, unfortunately.